The scientific-practical Law Journal
“Almanac of Law” Volume 13 (2022), 205-211 p.
DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2022-13-33
Guyvan P. D. Problematic issues regarding the application of the rule of Part 3 of Art. 267 of the Civil Code of Ukraine
The work is devoted to a critical analysis of the current civil legislation of Ukraine in terms of the introduction of the rule on the application of the statute of limitations by the court only in the case of a statement by the party. The author emphasizes that such an approach is not based on the real nature of the relationship that actually takes place, moreover, it distorts one of the fundamental concepts of civilization - subjective substantive law and its content. After all, this rule is not consistent with the recognized general theoretical concept of the legal nature of civil material terms and their significance for the exercise of subjective rights and responsibilities. Indeed, the civil law period is the period of time with the onset or expiration of which occur legally significant phenomena. In this case, the term is an element of the subjective substantive law of the person, and its expiration, as well as the exhaustion of other characteristics of the latter (in terms of scope of authority, behavior, etc.) leads to the termination of subjective rights. The innovation of the current civil law not only eliminated the importance of the statute of limitations as a limit to the existence of this protection right, it made it dependent on the implementation of the parties’ subjective right to a statement on the expiration of the statute of limitations. This right, as well as the right of the party to the dispute to make any other statements, is procedural, as it cannot be exercised outside the process. Therefore, the existence of substantive authority for judicial protection is made dependent on the fact of realization or non-exercise of a certain procedural authority. In other words, if the process has not started, the claim has an indefinite period of existence. This means that the statute of limitations does not in fact affect the viability of the claim, for which there is only a certain probability that it will be declared lost in the future. Such an approach is unlikely to meet the social needs for stability of civil relations, which were the basis for the introduction of the ancient institution. The paper criticizes the position of some scholars, who assess the introduction of the rule on the binding nature of the party’s statement in the dispute for the application of the statute of limitations as a manifestation of the principle of dispositiveness. They consider the application of the statute of limitations only at the request of the defendant to be a manifestation of this principle in the process. In fact, it is not. The article argues that the statute of limitations is not evidence in the case, the evidence may be any factual evidence of the expiration of the statute of limitations. To assess the course of the statute of limitations, a set of arguments is sufficient to establish the facts of the legal relationship, its violation by the obligor, etc. Therefore, the position that the application of the statute of limitations only at the request of the party to the dispute is a manifestation of the general civil principles of discretion and exercise of civil rights voluntarily and in their own interest is frankly unconvincing. Another legal mechanism is proposed, which allows to solve the problem of unlimited uncertainty of the duration of the statute of limitations: to give the defendant the right to make a statement of waiver of the statute of limitations.
Key words: statute of limitations, missed deadline, application for application.
References
1. Kartashov M. (2019). Problemy realizatsii prava na zvernennia do sudu. [Problems of exercising the right to go to court]. Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo. Entrepreneurship, economy and law [ukr].
2. Guyvan P. D. (2016). Problemy sudebnoho prymenenyia yskovoi davnosty. [Problems of judicial application of the statute of limitations]. LEGEA SI VIATA, 2/2, 35-39 [rus].
3. Guyvan P. D. (2017). Pro sudove zastosuvannia pozovnoi davnosti. [On the judicial application of the statute of limitations]. Aktualni problemy vitchyznianoi yurysprudentsii, 4, 19–23 [ukr].
4. Kalachov N. (1867). O davnosty po russkomu hrazhdanskomu pravu. [On the statute of limitations on Russian civil law]. Yurydycheskyi vestnyk. Moscow, 1, 1-18 [rus]. 5. Ýnhelman Y. E. (1901).
5. O davnosty po russkomu hrazhdanskomu pravu. [On the statute of limitations on Russian civil law]. Istoryko-dohmatycheskoe issledovanye. 3-e izd. SPb. [rus].
6. Guyvan P. D. (2014). Teoretychni pytannia strokiv u pryvatnomu pravi: monohrafiia. [Theoretical questions of terms in private law: monograph]. Kharkiv: Pravo [ukr].
7. Guyvan P. D. (2014). Strok subiektyvnoho materialnoho prava yak kharakterystyka yoho zmistu. [The term of subjective substantive law as a characteristic of its content]. Entrepreneurship, economy and law Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i parvo, 8, 19–23 [ukr].
8. Horobets N. O. (2017). Pozovna davnist u konteksti suchasnoho pravorozuminnia. [Statute of limitations in the context of modern legal understanding]. Problemy tsyvilnoho prava ta protsesu. Kharkiv, 145–147 [ukr].
9. Yarotskyi V. L. (2009). Normatyvno-orhanizatsiini y samoorhanizatsiini zasady pravovoho rehuliuvannia tsyvilnykh vidnosyn. [Normative-organizational and self-organizational principles of legal regulation of civil relations]. Problems of legality – Problemy zakonnosti, 100, 121–125 [ukr].
10. Tsikalo V. (2001). Imperatyvnist ta dyspozytyvnist pry zastosuvanni pravovykh naslidkiv zakinchennia stroku pozovnoi davnosti. [Imperativeness and dispositiveness in the application of the legal consequences of the expiration of the statute of limitations]. Law of Ukraine, 11, 95–97 [ukr].
11. Shtefan A. (2020). Pryntsyp dyspozytyvnosti u tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi. [The principle of dispositiveness in civil proceedings]. Teoriia i praktyka intelektualnoi vlasnosti, 5, 72–81 [ukr].
12. Morozov Ye. (2017). Dyspozytyvnist instytutu pozovnoi davnosti u sudovykh sporakh. [Dispositive statute of limitations in litigation]. URL: https://blog.liga.net/user/emorozov/article/26704 [ukr].
13. Kravchuk V. M., Uhrynovska O. I. (2006). Naukovo-praktychnyi komentar Tsyvilnoho protsessualnoho kodeksu Ukrainy. [Scientific and practical commentary on the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine]. Kyiv: Istyna [ukr].
14. Pechenyi O. P. (2016). Do pytannia pro zastosuvannia pozovnoi davnosti sudom apeliatsiinoi instantsii. [On the question of the application of the statute of limitations by the court of appeal]. Problemy tsyvilnoho prava ta protsesu: Kharkiv: KhNUVS, 137–141 [ukr].
15. Tsikalo V. I. (2004). Davnist u tsyvilnykh pravovidnosynakh. [Prescription in civil law]. Avtoref. dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk. Lviv [ukr].
16. Hordiienko H. (2005). Protsesualni aspekty zastosuvannia pozovnoi davnosti sudamy zahalnoi yurysdyktsii. Procedural aspects of the application of the statute of limitations by courts of general jurisdiction. Entrepreneurship, economy and law. Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i parvo, 12, 50–52 [ukr].
17. Shutenko O. V. (1999). Razvytye pryntsypa dyspozytyvnosty v istorii otechestvennoho sudoproyzvodstva. [Development of the principle of dispositiveness in the history of domestic proceedings]. Visnyk univer. vnutrishnikh sprav. Bulletin of the University. internal affairs. Kharkiv, 6, 274–277 [rus].
18. Elyseikyn P. F. (1974). Predmet y pryntsipy sovetskoho grazhdanskoho protsessualnoho prava [Subject and principles of Soviet civil procedural law]. Uchebnoe posobye. Yaroslavl [rus].
19. Hurvych M. A. (ed.). (1975). Sovetskyi grazhdanskyi protsess. [Soviet civil process]. Moscow: Vysshaia shkola [rus].
20. Tymchenko H. P. (2003). Poniattia dyspozytyvnosti u tsyvilnomu protsesualnomu pravi. [The concept of dispositiveness in civil procedural law]. Visnyk hospodarskoho sudochynstva. Bulletin of commercial litigation, 3, 209–214 [ukr].
21. Tymchenko H. P. (2003). Istoryko-pravovi aspekty pryntsypu dyspozytyvnosti u tsyvilnomu pravi. [Historical and legal aspects of the principle of dispositiveness in civil law]. Bulletin of commercial litigation. Visnyk hospodarskoho sudochynstva, 2, 150–155 [ukr].
22. Horobets N. O. (2017). Suchasni problemy tsyvilnoho prava ta protsesu. [Contemporary problems of civil law and process]. Navchalnyi posibnyk. Kharkiv: Pravo [ukr].
23. Vakhonieva T. (2005). Deiaki pytannia dii ta zastosuvannia pozovnoi davnosti v Ukraini. [Some issues of action and application of the statute of limitations in Ukraine]. Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo. Entrepreneurship, economy and law, 2, 80–83 [ukr].
<< Back
